Nigeria changed Presidents by democratic election

oggbashan

Dying Truth seeker
Joined
Jul 3, 2002
Posts
56,017
Nigeria has changed the political rules for most of Africa.

An opposition candidate has displaced a sitting President by a democratic election that was probably as fair as an African election can be.

Most African Presidents only change by armed rebellion or assassination.

If the new President can defeat Boko Haram, and tackle the harder task of endemic corruption in state officials, Nigeria could be the prosperous country it should be.
 
We have a substantial number of Nigerian nationals here in Houston in the awl bidness, this is ALL they have been talking about all week.

"We did it! We held an election! Let's hope we don't fuck this up!"
 
The 'new' President of Nigeria seized power in a military coup some years back. This time he was 'elected' although large parts of the country were effectively excluded.

His main argument for being elected was, to paraphrase, ' if you don't elect me there will be a military coup' - some democrat! However, his 'iron fist' approach in the '80s , if repeated, will result in massive killings in the North.

The new president is not a Boko Haram supporter - he will kill them, in the tens of thousands if necessary.

One improvement - he can't be more corrupt than the previous government.
 
Does this mean that there will be different Nigerians begging me to help them get money out of the country?
 
VOTING: Nigeria’s historic election just proved the world wrong.



For months, there were doubts that Nigeria would survive 2015. Headlines fixated on the winds of Boko Haram’s terrorism combining with the ethnic and religious tensions that divide the north and the south to create a storm of rampant violence that would tear the country apart. There was the expectation that Nigeria would burst into flames as a result of bullets being used to force political change instead of ballots, especially considering the massive election violence that erupted four years ago.

But over the weekend, Nigeria, a country of 170 million, gave the world a largely peaceful and credible election, with its most transparent vote to date. Retired Maj. Gen. Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC) defeated incumbent Goodluck Jonathan of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) for the presidency. To Jonathan’s credit, he called the 72-year-old Buhari on Tuesday to concede. No doubt it is the mark of a functioning democracy when a losing candidate respects the results of a democratic election. Buhari’s victory was decisive: He won 54 percent of the vote to Jonathan’s 45 percent.


Everything’s great, except for this one sad fact: “This is is also the first time that Nigeria used biometric card-reading technology, to help cut back on vote fraud and rigging.” Such a triumph for democracy and the rule of law, marred by the use of racist voter ID.
 
Nigeria has changed the political rules for most of Africa.

An opposition candidate has displaced a sitting President by a democratic election that was probably as fair as an African election can be.

Most African Presidents only change by armed rebellion or assassination.

If the new President can defeat Boko Haram, and tackle the harder task of endemic corruption in state officials, Nigeria could be the prosperous country it should be.

only a LIB can rejoice at a MURDEROUS thug "winning" and "election"
 
only a LIB can rejoice at a MURDEROUS thug "winning" and "election"

Which candidate were you referring to?

The previous president or the newly elected one?

I don't think there was a candidate for peace and tolerance.
 
Back
Top